guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Guild Wars: Factions
Solid chp 2 Information Gaile Gray has been to LA numerous times talking about chapter 2 with people giving out hints and telling everyone some solid facts about it. Here are some links to those conversations (with appearences by the Frog too!): http://guildwars.gameamp.com/forum/showTopic/21406.php her latest visit, http://guildwars.gameamp.com/forum/showTopic/21329.php information overload, and there was one more but I cannot find it again. There is also a link to what I guess we can call rumored information: http://guildwars.gameamp.com/forum/showTopic/21391.php class and skill information. If the previous link is true, then I believe that newskills.txt link almost 100%. | Chuiu 20:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC) IMO a wiki shouldn't be the place for speculation or rumors. At least not in articles. Keep speculation on the talk pages. Only list things that are officially confirmed by ANet in interviews or on forums, with link to source as evidence. And only ANet, please. Your local EB dealer does not count as official, even if he claims to have insider information on the release date. ;) --Fisherman's Friend 09:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) ---- Shandy replaced "first half of 2006" with "first quarter or second quarter of 2006". I reverted, because I wanted to use the exact same wording of Gaile Gray from the GameSpot interview. Furthermore, I don't see the difference between "first half" and "first or second quarter". 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2 Isn't it? --Fisherman's Friend 09:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC) : Yeh but in gaming quarters are used 12:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC) ::In this case, they didn't use quarters (at least, not in the interview). I tend to agree with Fisherman's Friend; go with the published facts. I think we should only go with the "Q1 or Q2" if we can find an interview stating it that way. The "Q1 or Q2" technically means the same as "1st half"; but I think most people read "Q1 or Q2" as implying a Q1 target with a potential slip to Q2. As far as I know, this isn't what has been said in interviews (yet), so we should go with the "1st half" statement that they have clearly given. It implies a slightly longer wait, but is more realistic given the facts that we have available so far. --Barek 13:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC) :::When you hear about stuff coming out in 1st, 2nd, etc... quarter that is coming from a business/accounting report generally speaking. It has to do with companies (usually publically held ones) and the reporting that they have to do. They will try to spread the games they release out over the four annual quarters to keep their profits up and keep their shareholders happy. Since Gaile Gray can do more than read a pre-prepared press release, she stated it in more human terms, "first half of the year." :::As a side note Amazon.co.uk or whatever the UK version is called, has the second chapter listed. But I wouldn't trust their release date any more than I would one posted in a local game store. --Rainith 13:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC) ::::I agree. Shandy was an idiot to put that edit in there. He can't even find his source where he got 'first or second quarter' from. However, were he to find it he would include it again, as first or second quarter does imply an earlier release date than first half. He hadn't even read the gamespot interview when he made the edit. Fool. Shandy 10:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Rumor Mill Okay, THIS is the place for rumors and speculations! Let me start with one: The GameSpot interview quotes ANet: "We don't want to give away too much about the upcoming story, but count on seeing landscapes that have been irrevocably changed by world events, ..." I bet that we're going to Orr (or what is left of it ;))!! --Fisherman's Friend 01:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC) :Hehe. I was thinking of Orr myself, although who knows how navigable it will be... :They'd better add character slots or I'm going to be reeeally pissed off. — Lunarbunny 01:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC) :: Cantha Cantha Cantha --FireFox 07:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC) :::If between Ch.1 and Ch.2 they use a time seperator like the two years during the searing, which would seem likely, then almost any landscape could get changed in the interim. : I hate to burst your bubble, but during the pre-Winterday talk in LA, the frog specifically stated that the only way to visit Orr would be in SCUBA gear. Based upon that, I think it's highly likely that only Cantha will be available in Chapter 2. LordKestrel 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) But, I do want it to be Orr and Cantha - I've been wanting to go to those locations! --Barek 11:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC) ::::The Frog mentioned Cantha in a recent talk, so that might be an option too, yes. But I'm 100% sure Orr will be included in Chapter Two too. Infact I believe the name "Orr" will be included in the final title of the expansion. Something like: "GuildWars II - The Ruins of Orr". --Fisherman's Friend 11:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC) :::::Gaile Gray was in Lion's Arch this morning (I'm sorting through my screenshots now); here are some comments: A Game magazine has a new interview, another two are coming in over the next two weeks, Chapter two is in Cantha, it'll have an asian theme, the story line is more open than this one, new PvP arenas, new professions (yes, plural), no one has level 12 rank yet, new looks to items and clothing, Chapter 2 is stand alone, but you can travel between the two lands if you own both, pre-order and beta events are coming sooner than you may think, there will be special pre-order items, be sure to get a promise for the pre-order package from your retailer if you want the pre-order items, we have no specific date yet, we will have more information next week (I missed if this was related to release date or beta event dates). She wouldn't give away how the storyline is connected - said that's part of the fun and we must wait. --Barek 13:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC) One of the magazines is CGW (Computer Gaming World if memory serves me) and info (and cover pic) can be found here. :The game magazine is indeed CGW, someone posted a transcript of the article, http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/showthread.php?p=857451 is a good summary. The new other class will be ritualist, they give a ton of new skills (but not the same as in below text file) as well as tons of info on new content and PvP options. Someone should get hold of a hard copy of the magazine just to confirm the transcript is correct, but it looked quite believable. --Xeeron 21:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Someone has also posted, as a text file, a skill list here, I don't trust that at all, I could make a text file and put it up and say that those were new skills, but as this is the rumor mill, I figured I'd post it. --Rainith 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I'm gonna get myself this month's CGW, thank you. I'm pretty sure Tyria is the world...I doubt the Canthan Ferry Captain would say "While the northern powers fear the influence of powerful guilds, '''Cantha recognizes the value that many guilds bring to Tyria." if Cantha were not part of Tyria. — Lunarbunny 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC) :Technically, Cantha and Tyria seem to occupy the same "planet" per se as travel between them is by ship, but Cantha seems to be a different "continent" than Tyria. To put things in regular human terms. :) --Karlos 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC) ::I guess if you twist it a little, the ferry captain is saying that Cantha is nice enough to host something otherwise illegal for Tyrians. I think I'll start my own offshore corporation for creating guerilla organizations that operate in the U.S., providing transportation to and shelter at corporately owned islands at any time necessary. I will also provide a system for groups formed by my corporation to settle their differences on these islands. ;) — Lunarbunny 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC) :::Does anyone have a copy of the magazine? In one of the notes that I saw copied from it, the article mentioned the world of Tyria, and the continent of Ascalon. This was news to me; but it would explain some of the confusion if true. Can anyone confirm this was in the magazine? --Barek 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC) '''Unconfirmed Release Date A possible release date for chapter two has slipped out, thanks to Amazon.com. The possible date is set for March 31, 2006. You can see the site for yourself at http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0009WXQJ6/202-2676261-2433403 this link. No news from NCSoft yet as to weather this date is accurate or not. --AeSiR oDiN 11:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC) :From what I've seen of Amozon posted release dates in the past, I only give it a 50% chance of being right. Still, if other sources can back up that date, it's great news! --Barek 11:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC) ::Oh, pleeeeease, no! Game retailers tend to give rather optimistic extimates of release dates, because they want people to preorder. DO NOT, EVER, TRUST RELEASE DATES GIVEN BY GAMES RETAILERS. No matter if they claim to have insider info. Usually you get a pretty accurate estimate of the release date if you take the remaining time from today until the official release date given by the developer/publisher and multiply it x 1.5. (Unless the game we're talking about is Duke Nukem Forever. In that case multiply x 25. :D) --Fisherman's Friend 11:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC) move or add redirect? According to the Official GW homepage, Guild Wars: Factions is now the working title of chapter 2. Should we move this article, or make a new article that points here (since working titles can change, and "Chapter Two" serves as a more consistent label for the next release, even if it's no longer the working title). -PanSola 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) :I was about to ask the same question. Since that is the confirmed official title, I'd say we move the article to Guild Wars: Factions and make Chapter Two, Chapter 2 and Factions redirects. --Fisherman's Friend 06:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) ::Agreed. --Karlos 06:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) :::/signed, as the kids say. --Nunix 06:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) ::::Done. Kidburla 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Copyrighted CGW content I don't mean to be the devil's advocate, but I have to point out that per ANet's request all major GW websites have removed detailed info that has been copied from the CGW article from their news and forums, as it is supposed to be exclusive for CGW and copyrighted. I reckon as soon as the January issue is no longer for sale the content will be free to quote, but for now we should refrain from adding all the details to GuildWiki. --Fisherman's Friend 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) :Technically it's the Feb issue. I think it's safe to add "New skills for existing professions" w/o describing the professions ::On the one hand, I always get iffy about "exclusives" because, well, it's just some text. Freedom of information, and all that. On the other, I'd prefer none of this go up at all until it's in the game. Thankfully, if history is any judge, someone will pipe up with strong objections one way or the other and by the time we finish arguing about it, the expansion'll be out. ;p But if you check the GWG thread, Gray seems fine with reporting the content as long as it's not a direct copy of the article. --Nunix 07:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) :::Yes, the thread on the GWG forums is pretty detailed, and Gaile Gray doesn't seems to mind. I'm not sure if CGW magazine would be just as relaxed. It is really hard to draw the line. We should keep an eye on the page, as people will add more details. Pretty soon the page will probably be linked from the Main Page. At that point we may have to make it write-protected, otherwise it'll be anarchy, with people addding all kinds of rumors, demands, hoaxes, questions, ... --Fisherman's Friend 08:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) ::::We did two things which I think cover the issue: a) we attributed the info to CGW and b) we did not redistribute the article in part or whole. I believe we are in the clear. --Karlos 08:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) "2" new professions That language made it sound like the number of new professions is exactly two. If that is not the case, I suggest rewording to "at least two new professions" or just "new professions" to keep the number open. :I haven't read the article, but from what people have said (not an incredibly reliable source, I know) it is 2, no more, no less. --Rainith 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC) ::The CGW article specifically says "two" new professions. --Fisherman's Friend 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) I've read the article, and it said there will be 6 new armor sets for the old professions, not 5. Now I attempted to correct this (I had forgot to log in, though), but only minutes later it had been changed back to 5. I'll leave it at this. --Sorya 04:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) :Sorry, there was an edit conflict (i.e. you made your edit while I made mine) and I overwrote the 6 with the old 5. I put the 6 (CGW: "Half a dozend") back in now. --Fisherman's Friend 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) I disagree calling it a Beta Weekend Event Anet didn't call it Beta Weekend Event. For all we know the PvP portion could've still been in alpha or considered "gold". No need to use a previously used term and stick it in here. There also might be other events that Anet decide to call Beta Weekend Events, which might get distinguished from this event (called the PvP Weekend Event). If anything this is more similar to the World Preview Event. THE BWE was a recurring thing (which doesn't mean future BWEs, if they exist, have to e recurring, but just to point out which event this one in particular is more similar to). Thoughts? -PanSola 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) :This is a minor thing to me. Feel free to edit the article and use ANet's original wording. --Fisherman's Friend 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Factions My understanding was that the two new Factions (Luxon and Kurzick) played more prominently into PvE than PvP. From what I've read, the PvE player must choose a faction, and in several missions/quests they actually compete against other teams who chose the other faction in attempting to complete the mission or quest's goals. I wanted to confirm before I adjusted the wording on the article. --Barek 10:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) :I think we can safely assume that Factions will play an important role in both PvP and PvE. :Tricky question: If two human teams compete in attempting to complete a PvE mission or quest's goals, is that PvE or PvP? Let's call it PvEvP. ;) --Fisherman's Friend 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) ::Ditto fisherman's fiend's question. I think what we are going to get is that the Storyline Mission sbecomes more than just PvE missions, but also include PvP missions. -PanSola 10:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) :::I agree. My comment here was just because the article currently subcategorizes Factions under "New PvP/GvG features", but the Factions should probably be their own top level confirmed feature. I'll make the update; revert and discuss further if there's disagreement on how I read the talk here. --Barek 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Redirect or not? Is there an agreement on keeping all Chapter 2 info on this page, till the game becomes playable (which might be as soon as tomorrow)? There are many Chapter 2 related articles springing up right now, I would like to make them all redirects to this page. Anyone disagreeing? --Xeeron 09:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) *Disagree. I don't think that the growing mass of Information concerning Guild Wars: Factions could possibly be summarized on one page. And it is playable for the first time (at leas parts of it ) beginning on 20 January 2006... --Si Tacuisses 09:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)